About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 100
LANGUAGE
English 100
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 100 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.ç so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
at revenue from somebody. on the state side, when i got elections a $3.65 billion deficit. the worst in the nation. i quickly realized it's too large to tax your way out of or to cut your way out. it had to be a combination. that portion hasn't happened to the extent we presumed it would. this year, we have to trim expenditures by $365 million more than we otherwise would have. but, the grand bargain with the public is, to maintain a level of service they have a comfort level with. to not overdo it, not overextend ones self. >> when grow to voters and say, we are going to raise taxes, what is the pitch? >> i did 14 town hall meetings, no, 17 town hall meetings and got yelled at at every single one of them. we had a conversation with the public about what are the options. if you are talking cutting a budget by 17% because that's what the revenue short fall was, they quickly understood, you can't cut a budget 17% in a single year and sustain the level of services that allow their children to be educate and their mother and father remain in a nursing home and receive benefits and so see
're serious about reducing our deficit, while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy, and if we're serious about protecting middle class families, we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one wrins pal i won't compromise on. >> good saturday morning to you, mike. >> hi, alex. >> let's talk about the time line. is there a realistic one in which this can all get done by the beginning of the year? >> i think there is, alex. i think people know the parameters of the year. it's just can they get there, do they have the political will to get there. more importantly, alex, do they have the votes to get there in the house of representatives. you heard the president. he says no compromise on this issue of raising taxes for the wealthy. there's one glimmer of hope, how much to hike taxes. as you know, clinton tax rates for wealthiest americans were 39.6%. that's what's going to happen at the beginning of the year. right now they are 35%. the president has been insisting all along those rat
. the deficit is not the biggest problem in the country. the deficit is shrinking by hundreds of millions of dollars every year the president has been in office. to the extent we need to use debt to accomplish other goals, you may not like the idea in the abstract, but debt is cheaper now than it has been in a long time. focusing on the deficit is like arguing about the color you might paint your car while you're crashing that car into a tree. in washington the republicans are arguing about not a pretend problem but something that's a secondary problem. a problem that has no need to be the one problem we wreck everything else to solve. if you look at the real economy in the real world, outside of t stuff already think we're not growing enough to get back to a healthy economy. they cut the estimate to how much we are growing. people are not making enough money and therefore, not spending enough money and businesses are not hiring enough people. we need to be talking about growth. the problem in the country is an economic growth problem. the deficit, nobody wants there to be a deficit, but
we're getting this technically correct, how to cut the deficit in the medium to long-term so as to avoid an immediate and dramatic cut in the short-term. yes, that's right. now, this may well present a problem for john boehner's caucus, because john boehner sent a letter to the president this week with his own plan, which advocates what just might be the least popular policy in american politics. okay, maybe that's hyperbole. but just be a tiny bit, i mean, mandatory gay marriage, in which every single married straight person had to immediately divorce their spouse, and accept a state-assigned same-gender spouse to replace them would probably be more popular than what john boehner proposed this week. what john boehner is advocating is making medicare available to fewer americans. as it happens, there is brand-new polling out today on how americans feel about the idea of congress using these deficit negotiations to make cuts to medicare. 79% of americans say they do not want congress to touch medicare in these deficit negotiations. 79%. if you want to get specific about john b
is to go over the fiscal cliff. it maximizing the deficit reduction. there's no deal cut between republicans and democrats. it's not going to reduce the amount of money coming out of the deficit by a lot. so if you do that, you go back to the clinton tax rates, cut some defense and we have a short, mild recession for two quarters. we have to get serious about the deficit e. i have no belief that the congress is going to get serious about the deficit. so tom cole was right because he wants to get the republicans back in the mainstream. but the best thing the country could do is go over the cliff. >> timothy geithner doesn't agree with you on that. >> he may or may not. but i looked at this a lot of ways. the people inside washington are awfully smart and awfully out of touch. we need to do something about the deficit. going over the fiscal cliff is the best thing we're going to get out of washington in terms of serious production to the deficit. we will suffer, but we got ourselves into this. we're not going to get out without some pain. i think we are going to go over the cliff.
the white house in 1988. but just two years later, the reagan deficits were skyrocketing and president bush was forced to change his most famous line. >> long and bitter battle over the budget officially ended last night. president bush put his signature on the deficit reduction package, including $140 billion in tax increases. >> tax increases. that was a turning point for the modern republican party. the right wing went crazy. and george bush lost re-election. since then the party's been committed to never compromising on the tax issue, no matter the deficit. no congressional republican has voted for an increase in taxes since 1990. think about it. for nearly a quarter of a century, no new income taxes. in the current congress, 236 house republicans vowed never to raise taxes. 40 gop senators also kept that pledge. even president george w. bush, the man who got us into two wars we didn't pay for. the president who exploded our deficit. he insisted the solution to our problems were more tax cuts. president clinton handed him a $236 billion surplus. a surplus. and left office with a $1.2 tr
in the house does not work in terms of reducing the deficit. >> congresswoman, we are watching the president on our screen at the business roundtable. there was an issue with the poll microphone for the president's address so they've handed him a different microphone, the leaders inside this room can hear exactly what the president is saying but his audio is too low for us to be able to share it with everybody. we're still working on that. when we see and hear about the fact this two-step plan getting something done for the middle class by the end of the year, does this set up the scenario we live in a perpetual state of fiscal cliff loopness, this is the same old dog and pony show every six months to a year fighting over the same things and not big, bold leadership? >> i hope not, certainly if it's not left up to president obama and congressional democrats. president obama proposed $4 trillion in deficit reduction, he has a balanced approach to take care of the middle class and that they have the certainty that they need that we make spending cuts that are significant, that make sense, and
revenue to have meaningful deficit reduction. and unfortunately, the changes in the tax code, which the republicans say they want to turn to, will start increasing taxes and cutting tax deductions for the middle class americans. >> senator, can i stop you on that point? i think that's significant. what you just said is what the president has said, is that we can't get enough revenue to solve the problem unless the rates go up. but wait a minute. last summer, in july of 2011, this is what he said about how to get to $1.2 trillion in revenue. listen. >> what we said was, give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues. which could be accomplished without hiking taxes -- tax rates, but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax reform process that could have lowered rates generally, while broadening the base. >> so if that was true then, senator, why can't he just do tax deductions? republicans say they would agree to that, and not focus so much on raising the top rates? >> david, we have set a target of cutting $4 trillion ou
been making noise for the last few years about the deficit. democrats have mimicked the noise. yes, we have a huge deficit problem. you get in public opinion polls, overwhelming majorities say yes. they look at the polls and respond to it. something similar happened on medicare. we have the notion of there's a medicare crisis. there's an entitlement. this is a health care crisis. >> i really need to say about jonathans piece. i am liberal, but that is the worst example i have heard. take people out of a popular -- i hope this is not the white house position. take people out of a popular program that works and they love, put them into obama care that is not so popular and they don't necessarily love. take away something they like and give them something liberals think they should like. >> the right question is, the portuguese have an average income lower than ours with universal health care. it costs two-thirds of their economy compared to our economy. we are having the wrong discussion. here is the program. start by lowering medicare is an option to 55 or 40. stop reacting to what -- >
talked about during the campaign, which is a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction that can help give businesses certainty and make sure that the country grows. and unfortunately, the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> sometimes you hear a sound byte and it sounds like the normal talking points of the campaign that you always here, you're always hearing politicians saying the same thing. but listen again to that last thing that the president said there. >> unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> speaker's proposal is out of balance. empirical statement, sort of. there's a way to judge whether or not that statement is true. what's happening in washington is both sides, republicans and democrats, are making offers and counteroffers about how to deal with the fiscal mess that they created. this artificial debt line that washington created. the white house made its offer to republicans last week. they sent timothy geithner up to capitol hill to unveil the administration's offer to congressional republicans. the offer was e
to the deficit. it's just irresponsible to even put social security in a discussion as we are trying to get a deal. medicare can, i think, be massaged in terms of means testing. with the upper income individuals paying more or sometimes all of their medical expenses, it makes no sense for the government to pay medicare costs for someone earning $700,000 a year. so i think we can do some means testing. but by no means am i saying it should be low enough so our elderly and poorist americans are going to pay for the deficit. but we want a deal. and keep in mind, i think this is very important. if the bush tax cuts are expired, as they will be, just as sure as today is friday, they are gone, that generates $950 billion toward the deficit over a ten-year period. we'd set aside $1.2 trillion. we're almost there. and if you do means testing on medicare, we make it. >> well, the republicans would never go along with that kind of means testing because that would hit the wealthier americans. that's who they are going to protect. how would that work out? >> what i would hope is if republicans fight a
of a process to reduce the deficit the others face. >> republicans don't like owning reform either. this was tom cole on sunday. >> only obama can fix entitlements. democrat versus democrat fight over entitlement which mirrors their fighting over taxes. a response to an argument that was starting before former adviser steve ratner and minnesota democratic congressman keith ellison with near glee. there is no real choice about that. we're clear social security is off the table. this is, to me, the much more interesting debate between tom and dan. >> you want republicans arguing. both sides are also battling for control of the debt ceiling which may represent the republicans' greatest point of leverage in these budget talks. goo the speaker of the house says that's a nonstarter. >> silliness. congress will never give up the power. i've made it clear to the president. we need cuts in reform greater than the increase in the debt limit. >> bottom line, you've got to put a detailed plan on the table that the white house ends up agreeing to some of it, rejects some of it in the same way t
the middle class because given that we have a large budget deficit down the road and given that if we don't want to and they don't want to cut military spending, what's left? they will have to cut programs beneficial to the middle class. this is another example, this is a continuation of the war on the middle class that they started years ago. now it's becoming clear for everybody to see. it was very clear before the election, but we had an election. americans repudiated the republican idea. reverse robin hood economics and yet they are coming back with it. over and over and over again. i think the fact that boehner will not schedule a vote on the middle class extension of the bush tax cuts that the president wants, the senate has already passed this. boehner is under increasing pressure to schedule a vote on this and get it out of the way. once they do that, the game is over. >> nancy pelosi is trying to take care of that. she plans to bring a discharge petition to the floor of the house tomorrow. this would force republicans to openly accept or reject the middle class tax cuts. did this
that certainty to the middle class. then we can work in earnest together to reduce the deficit in a balanced way that will make sure we don't first throw the middle class under the bus. that whatever we put forward have spending cuts and revenue that is going to take care of the middle class and make sure that we have spending cuts and revenue that ensures that they're fair and that the math works. there has been no evidence thus far that the republicans are interested in doing that. >> this has been the perfect opportunity for them to step forward and show some leadership. the majority of americans do want this right now. congresswoman, the president has asked you to stay on as d next c chair. what is the way forward for the democrats? what's happening here? >> well, we need to continue to focus on rebuilding our economy from the middle class out. president obama talked eloquently and passionately during the campaign about making sure that we can get a handle on this deficit, that we can rebuild our economy from the middle class out, that we can focus on creating jobs and getting the economy tu
the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. and if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he has an obligation to families and small businesses, to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> speaker, you spoke with the president earlier this week. can you characterize this call? if he called, did he have any kind of counteroffer? and also, we understand that he's just making clear that it's got to be increase in rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit, maybe just not all the way to 39.6? >> it was -- the phone call was pleasant but was just more of the same. the conversation that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. it's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counteroffer. >> mr. speaker, the jobs report today indicated unemployment is down roug
for the american people that extends tax cuts to the american people. brings our long-term deficits down. tough spending savings is part of that, and invest in things that matter to the american economy, like infrastructure, and getting americans back to work. we think we can do that. we have a good chance, and it's very important. and i think we'll get there, david. >> do you think we'll get a deal by the end of the year? >> i do. because the only thing standing in the way of that is a refusal by republicans to accept that rates have to go up on the wealthiest americans. and i don't really see them doing that. >> the idea that they have signalled something significant for them, which is -- >> what is that? >> putting revenue on the table. >> it's welcome that they are recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. but they haven't told us anything about how far rates should go up, how far revenues should go up, who should pay higher taxes. >> republicans have said that no republicans will vote for a tax rate increase. do you think they are just bluffing? >> i can't tell you what they ar
is that at a minimum, any deficit package has to include this immediate february and march debt ceiling that we're going to hit. >> is jack lew the current chief of staff and former budget director the top candidate to be treasury? what is your best guess? >> he appears to be the frontrunner from everything you see and read and hear and he is a -- i've known him a long time. he's an accomplished guy. he knows these issues perfectly. he has worked in the financial community and has a sense of that and vice versa. and so i think he would be a it terrific choice. >> we should say there are a couple other people who have been rumored to being vetted. roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >
this conversation about having deficit reduction right now. we shouldn't have deficit reduction right now. we should focus on jobs and employment and continued stimulus for the economy, which i was really happy about the president at least had some of that in his plan. then you ask yourself, okay, what could you do in terms of reducing the deficit that would be the least damaging, and what economists say and what makes common sense is people at the top end of the income scale, who can afford to pay a little more, that's the place where we can raise the rates now and not have a major economic impact. so i take the governor's point, and i agree with it. we probably are going to -- if we're going to continue to make the promises and keep the promises that i think are so important and most progressives do, we probably need to raise taxes on a lot of people. it's a question of timing of when to make those choices. >> the rush limbaugh showed us today how difficult it is for john boehner and eric cantor to make the moves they've already made. let's listen to what rush said. >> what we got today was a semi
is the problem? we cannot raise taxes enough to take care of $1 trillion worth of deficit spending every single year. so let's get off of this and get on to the other side and start talking about what we have to do to cut our spending, to reform those entitlement programs that are the debt drivers and then do pro-growth tax reform that will stimulate the economy, get the money coming in. it's the best way to get money coming in and that gives everybody a job and helps to take care of the fiscal problem and balanced is what we need. >> congresswoman diane black, thank you for joining me this morning. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> i want to bring in our political power panel. political reporter, karen tumult, karen finney and robert trainam. karen, since i know you the best, i'm going to call you k-fin as not to confuse everyone. it seems the taxes are going to go up on the wealthy. the question is whether or not it's through the tax increases or closing the loopholes and the deductions. so do you think that we are closer to a deal today than yesterday if. >> i do. in that now they're
a plan not just to avert the fiscal cliff, but importantly to really tackle the deficit and debt problems in this country. i am concerned that deal won't be big enough. is it going to be small or medium or big. we need a plan big enough to fix the deficit problems and make sure the debt is no longer growing faster than the economy. we're not going to be able to balance the budget in the near future because the fiscal hole is so big. you want to make sure the debt is not growing faster than the economy. that's going to take $4 trillion in savings. you need all parts on the table and constructed in a thoughtful way so that revenues are raised in ways that are good for the economy as possible, and that when we're looking at the spending in the budget, we reform our entitlement programs and reduce spending in way that's thoughtful and good for the economy. it's going to take a lot to get there, but i actually think most of the policy ideas are well known and we're now in this political negotiation where i think there's a lot of support for having them, if they're going to go through all this,
off this fiscal cliff, it doesn't make the deficit worse. it makes the deficit better. it would go a long way toward curing the deficit, but the deficit isn't the immediate problem for most people, the weak economy is. >> i agree. >> and if we dive off the fiscal cliff, the economy could get much weaker. that's -- >> by the way -- >> -- millions of americans. it's a problem for barack obama. >> just to back you up, i really think the great thing is the economy is just starting to lift up a. the unemployment rate is really starting to come down. we're getting good job production. thank you so much, ladies, for coming on tonight. thanks for the sharp thinking we got tonight. >>> up next, if you can't win by the rules, change then. that's what republicans are trying to do in pennsylvania. they don't like the lerer toal college because it didn't work for them. come back for the place for politics. derate alzheimer's, you'll also care about our new offer. you get access to nurses who can help with your questions. and your loved one can get exelon patch free for 30 days. if the doctor fe
on the highest 2%, you cannot generate enough revenue for deficit reduction. unfortunately, the changes in the tax code, which is republicans want to turn to will increase taxes and cut tax deductions for the middle class americans. >> all right. joining me now, contributing editor for the daily beast. we just heard from democratic senator there. does that sound like any progress has been made? as we talk about 23 days, that doesn't take into account we are looking at december 21st. if you happen to watch that on television, it looks like both sides are hardening. the cement is getting thicker. there's a growing recognition on the republican side that they have lost the debate over the higher tax rates and that those rates will go up. and there are lots of other tax increases that aren't getting the public attention. the rate at which capital gains are taxed. the rate that is paid on dividend income. i'm stumbling over my words because i don't have a lot in that category. i think the republicans are willing to move there and there's money there. the president has been more forthcoming o
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
. >> what the president has said is we need $1.6 trillion as part of an overall deficit reduction plan, because if you don't get those additional revenues, but you also try and reduce the deficit, you end up whacking everybody else much harder. and so, it's really important to have that revenue number as high as possible. >> sure. >> look, the president's already been clear, ed. on cuts, he will continue to implement over the next ten years over $1 trillion in cuts that he agreed to as part of the budget control act, 100% cuts. and at the time, he said we've got to come back and do revenue. he "life & style weeklalso call billion in cuts and laid out exactly what those should be. >> catch "the ed show" here at 8:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc, the place for politics. >>> well, new jersey governor chris christie is making a personal plea for federal disaster aid in the wake of hurricane sandy. the republican governor paid an unannounced visit to the white house to ask the president for $83 billion in aid for new jersey, new york and connecticut. he also met with members of congress. it was th
, but not as part of the process to reduce the deficit the country faces. >> there's a notion some republicans are for lack of a better word salivating at a possible it divide where you have some democrats who want no movement on entitlements and if there's any heat to be taken, it to come from the gop or go to the gop. >> let me just say a couple of things. first of all, what geithner was referring to is that social security shouldn't be on the table right now because it's not a driver of the deficit we're dealing with right now. he's referring to a separate process next year. what the republicans have asked for previously and i hope they're not going to continue to ask for is essentially the dismantling of medicare. we debated it during the presidential with paul ryan's proposal to put -- turn medicare into a voucher system. so when it comes to looking for savings in medicare, there's ways to find savings without breaking the guarantee that we've had to our seniors for the last several decades. i think democrats, again, have demonstrated repeatedly that we're willing to compromise, but the r
and then these will be the numbers that the committees on capitol hill work towards in terms of having sizable deficit reduction. >> here is the problem, luke. how is it possible that speaker boehner puts on the table $150 billion less than he considered conceding during the grand bargain negotiations? did the last year not happen? >> reporter: what you're seeing here is a proposal by speaker boehner with the $800 billion in revenue which is where they were during -- >> you're trying to stifle yourself from laughing, luke. >> reporter: i'm not. i think one interesting points here in terms of the letter is that the first line is, dear mr. president, after a status quo election, and if you talk to folks at the white house, they don't view it as a status quo election. they thought what they had was a huge victory, and they are just -- if you're flying at 35,000 feet, you see the difference between both of them here is babe e boehner is like our margins in the house, you know, we still have a sense of clout. democrats are saying we increased our clout. this offer is meant by boehner to say the first one from geithn
't think any credible economist will tell you we can simply cut our way out of the current deficits and debt. we need new revenues, and where should they come from? should they come from a middle class or working families that have really struggled or had setbacks in the last decade, or should it come from families that have done very well and can be asked to do more? if you look at the prosperity we enjoyed during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from sp
deal with the deficit? that's not coming from the markets. the bond market is saying here's the money you want and we're kind of creating these things out of nowhere to force us to deal with the long-term deficit problem but the short term markets aren't doing it. >> neil, talk about these markets you speak of. i want to play a clip of maria the other day. >> the markets right now are expecting a deal. the markets have been trading fine. if we don't gate deal, we are going to see a sizable decline in stocks. we are going to get a big disappointment. >> markets will be disappointed. the markets have expectations. who is this mr. markets that is endowed with the personality anç expectations and is this monolithic creature that will respond to, you know, what's going on in washington? are we giving the markets a little bit too much personality here? >> well, yeah. i mean, obviously the market is millions of people and institutions all over the world deciding whether to buy stocks or bonds or whatever but more broadly, you know, it is true that markets aren't, you know, they're not alway
revenue. as i've indicated, the only way to get the kind of revenue for a balanced deficit reduction plan is to make sure that we're also modestly increasing rates for people who can afford it. folks like me. just to be clear, i'm not going to sign any package that somehow prevents the top rate from going up for folks at the top 2%. >> the concerted effort from the white house is very clear. here's white house press secretary jay carney. >> what will produce a deal is an acknowledgement by republicans, republican leaders, that rates on the top 2%, the wealthiest americans, have to rise. there is no deal without that acknowledgement, and without a concrete, mathematically sound proposal -- >> but speaker boehner still insists he can get the revenue without raising rates? >> now, the revenues we're putting on the table are going to come from guess who? the rich. there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes, and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy. >> some conservatives just can't stan
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 100 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)